Notebookcheck

Razer Phone 2017 Smartphone Review

Florian Wimmer, Felicitas Krohn (translated by Martin Jungowski), 03/30/2018

The Gaming Phone. Gaming at 120 frames! No more stuttering! Many a gamers' dream may have just come true with the release of the Razer Phone 2017. Our review is going to reveal whether or not this smartphone is made just with gamers in mind and how it does in real-life scenarios.

Razer Phone

In the recent years, mobile gaming has evolved to more than just a meaningless buzzword and yet dedicated gaming smartphones are conspicuously rare. Sony and Microsoft are big players in the mobile gaming sphere, but their innovations are limited to software only and dedicated gaming smartphones are practically nonexistent. Or rather were, because Razer, a manufacturer that became a big player in the industry thanks to its gamer-centric notebooks and peripherals, has decided to tackle this issue head-on: say Hello to the Razer Phone. A smartphone equipped with a 120 Hz display, Dolby Atmos, and state-of-the-art hardware created specifically to address the requirements of mobile gaming. In name it bares resemblance to the 2004 Motorola Razr v3, which, while a very slim phone, has absolutely nothing in common with Razer’s current series of gaming smartphones. The phone sells for $700 on Razer’s website, and its price has remained surprisingly stable since last year’s launch. Razer laptops are a favorite among gamers, but does that also apply to the Razer Phone? Let us find out.

At its price point, the arena is filled with the crème de la crème of premium smartphones; among others the OnePlus 5T that can be had for up to $200 less, the iPhone 8 Plus, the Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus, and the Huawei Mate 10 Pro.

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team! Especially English native speakers welcome!

Currently wanted: 
News and Editorial Editor - Details here

Razer Phone 2017 (Phone Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
8192 MB 
, LPDDR4, 1,600 MHz
Display
5.72 inch 16:9, 1440 x 2560 pixel 513 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, IGZO LCD, 120 Hz, Wide Color Gamut, Corning Gorilla Glass 3, glossy: yes
Storage
64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 64 GB 
, , 48.9 GB free
Connections
1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, Audio Connections: audio output through USB-C, Card Reader: microSD (class 10, 2TB max.), 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, gyroscope, proximity sensor, compass
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 4.2, GSM: quad-band GSM; UMTS: B1/2/3/4/5/8; LTE: B1/2/3/4/5/7/8/12/19/20/25/26/28/29/30/66; TDD LTE: B38/39/40/41; TD-SCDMA: B34/39, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8 x 158.5 x 77.7 ( = 0.31 x 6.24 x 3.06 in)
Battery
15.2 Wh, 4000 mAh Lithium-Ion, Qualcomm QuickCharge 4.0+
Operating System
Android 7.1 Nougat
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix dual camera: 12MP AF f1.75 wide, 12MP AF f2.6 zoom, dual PDAF, dual tone, dual LED flash
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix FF f2.0, Videos @1080p/30fps
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo front-facing speakers, Dual Amplifiers, Audio Adapter with THX certified DAC, Keyboard: virtual keyboard, Type-C to 3,5mm Audio Adapter, power supply, USB-C cable, SIM tool, Game Booster, Dolby Atmos, Nova Launcher, 24 Months Warranty, data rate: up to 600 Mbps (downstream) / 100 Mbps (upstream). SAR 0.35 W/kg (head), 0.68 W/kg (body), fanless
Weight
197 g ( = 6.95 oz / 0.43 pounds), Power Supply: 94 g ( = 3.32 oz / 0.21 pounds)
Price
749 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

Razer is the manufacturer behind high-quality gaming notebooks such as the Razer Blade or premium gaming accessories such as the Razer Chroma keyboards. Accordingly, our expectations for the new Razer Phone were quite high, and suffice it to say they were met. The entire case is made of metal and clad in black, with the Razer logo displayed prominently on the back. The design is fairly plain with a distinct lack of flashy lighting effects and other shenanigans. Thus, it does not necessarily look like a gaming phone per se. At 197 g (~7 oz) it is not the lightest, but it feels quite nice and hefty in hand.

Its rectangular design sets it apart from the masses without sacrificing ergonomics along the way. The most prominent front-facing design elements are the two speaker grills below and above the display. The case was very rigid by and large and only warped ever so slightly, and the display is well protected from all sides.

Razer Phone
Razer Phone
Razer Phone
Razer Phone
Razer Phone
Razer Phone
Razer Phone
Razer Phone
Razer Phone

Size Comparison

159.5 mm / 6.28 inch 73.4 mm / 2.89 inch 8.1 mm / 0.3189 inch 172 g0.3792 lbs158.5 mm / 6.24 inch 77.7 mm / 3.06 inch 8 mm / 0.315 inch 197 g0.4343 lbs158.4 mm / 6.24 inch 78.1 mm / 3.07 inch 7.5 mm / 0.2953 inch 202 g0.4453 lbs156.1 mm / 6.15 inch 75 mm / 2.95 inch 7.3 mm / 0.2874 inch 162 g0.3571 lbs154.2 mm / 6.07 inch 74.5 mm / 2.93 inch 7.9 mm / 0.311 inch 178 g0.3924 lbs

Connectivity

8 GB of RAM is plenty for a smartphone, and it is what we would have expected of a gaming smartphone. How else are you supposed to keep multiple games open without saving and quitting? Storage capacity is just 64 GB, which is on the low side in our opinion. The OnePlus 5T can be purchased with up to 128 GB and the iPhone 8 Plus even with up to 256 GB. At least Razer Phone supports microSD expansion, which can be formatted as an internal or an external storage. If formatted and mounted as an internal storage, the microSD card can be used to offload apps.

The USB 3.1 Gen 1 Type-C port at the bottom turned out to be very fast.

Software

By default, the phone comes preinstalled with Android 7.1.1 and the Nova Launcher, which is available in the Google Play Store for all other smartphones as well. The launcher is highly configurable and can be customized with free and paid-for themes from the Razer Theme store. Razer has promised to roll out the Android 8 update in the first quarter of 2018 but it was nowhere to be seen at the time of writing. Security patches were somewhat up-to-date and with the exception of a few games and the Game Booster, there is no additional preloaded software to be found on the phone.

Software Razer Phone
Software Razer Phone
Software Razer Phone
Software Razer Phone

Communication and GPS

Connected to a Wi-Fi router, the Razer Phone was very fast not just when connected to our reference router but also in real-world situations: websites loaded in the blink of an eye. At a distance of 10 m (~33 ft) to the router and with several walls in-between, loading times were slightly longer. Signal strength was around 50% in this scenario.

The phone lacks a second SIM slot and supports LTE Cat. 12 with a plethora of frequencies and data speeds up to 600 Mbps. Thanks to its support for a wide variety of LTE bands, the Razor Phone should have no trouble connecting to networks overseas.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
A11 Bionic GPU, A11 Bionic, Apple 256 GB (iPhone 8 / Plus)
914 MBit/s ∼100% +37%
Razer Phone 2017
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
665 MBit/s ∼73%
OnePlus 5T
Adreno 540, 835, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
386 MBit/s ∼42% -42%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
Mali-G71 MP20, 8895 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
368 MBit/s ∼40% -45%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
355 (min: 105, max: 550) MBit/s ∼39% -47%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
338 MBit/s ∼37% -49%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=459)
230 MBit/s ∼25% -65%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Razer Phone 2017
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
661 MBit/s ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
Mali-G71 MP20, 8895 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
656 MBit/s ∼99% -1%
OnePlus 5T
Adreno 540, 835, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
650 MBit/s ∼98% -2%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
627 (min: 490, max: 666) MBit/s ∼95% -5%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
225 MBit/s ∼34% -66%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
A11 Bionic GPU, A11 Bionic, Apple 256 GB (iPhone 8 / Plus)
374 MBit/s ∼57% -43%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=459)
219 MBit/s ∼33% -67%
GPS test indoors
GPS test indoors
GPS test outdoors
GPS test outdoors

GPS location was unavailable indoors, even when standing at the window. Outdoors, obtaining GPS lock took a few seconds and at 6 m (~20 ft), the GPS was fairly accurate.

We pitch every smartphone against a professional Garmin Edge 500 GPS made specifically for cyclists on a bicycle tour around the neighborhood. The Razer Phone was nowhere near as accurate as the Garmin Edge, but it was decent enough to be considered usable as everyday satnav.

GPS Garmin Edge 500 – overview
GPS Garmin Edge 500 – overview
GPS Garmin Edge 500 – bridge
GPS Garmin Edge 500 – bridge
GPS Garmin Edge 500 – woods
GPS Garmin Edge 500 – woods
GPS Razer Phone – overview
GPS Razer Phone – overview
GPS Razer Phone – bridge
GPS Razer Phone – bridge
GPS Razer Phone – woods
GPS Razer Phone – woods

Telephony and Call Quality

In addition to all the gaming bells and whistles, the Razer Phone is still a phone first and foremost. Unfortunately, call quality turned out to be something of a mixed bag. One the one hand, the earphone experience was extremely poor. Our conversational partners sounded as if they were far away from their phone. Maximum volume was decent, but distortions and static ruined the experience completely. The microphone overamplified loud voices considerably but had no trouble recording low volume sounds. After activating the speakerphone, the results were quite the opposite: we were able to understand our conversational partners loud and clear, and sound quality was amazing. However, the microphone now failed to even detect low volume input at all.

Cameras

Aufnahme Frontkamera
Aufnahme Frontkamera

The main rear-facing dual-camera features two 12 MP sensors. Photos taken with it turned out very sharp and natural; unlike for example the iPhone X’s oversaturated loud colors. The secondary telephoto lens can be used to zoom in on details, and the camera is equipped with a dual-tone LED flash.

The 8 MP front-facing camera was basically the same - decent colors, and photos were sharp and in focus.

Videos are recorded in 4K, and both rear-facing lenses can be used for video recording. You can even switch between them while filming. Color representation was decent, and the ambient light sensors responded quickly and accurately to changes in lighting. The front-facing camera only supports video recording in 1080p.

Image Comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
click to load images

When tested in our lab under normalized conditions, uniform surfaces turned out somewhat blotchy and focus was not always 100% accurate. Colors were too bright overall, but we would still consider them to look fairly natural.

By and large the Razer Phone’s camera is adequate for a premium smartphone.

reference card overview
reference card overview
reference card (details)
reference card (details)
ColorChecker Colors. Bottom half of each square contains the reference color.
ColorChecker Colors. Bottom half of each square contains the reference color.

Accessories and Warranty

Included in the box is a high-quality USB-C to 3.5-mm adapter for connecting headphones to the Razer Phone. The built-in DAC is supposed to be of very high quality and it is supposedly also THX-certified. The USB-C charger and corresponding USB-C cable (USB-C at both ends) are great for charging the device. However, the cable cannot be used for connecting the Razer Phone to notebooks or desktop computers without at least a single USB-C port. Consequently, a dongle will be required in order to achieve this. A headset is not included.

By default, devices sold in Europe come with a 2-year limited warranty while US customers are once again deprived of that second year and limited to a 1-year warranty. Please see our Guarantees, Return Policies and Warranties FAQ for country-specific information.

Input Devices & Handling

The virtual GBoard keyboard is provided by Google, which we applaud. The keyboard is well-arranged and powerful, thanks to a multitude of settings. The touchscreen was very smooth and detected input reliably up to its very edges. Gestures are supported by the Razer Phone but the choice is very limited.

Embedded into the power button on the side is a fingerprint reader - a design concept that Sony has also used on some of their phones. Simply placing your finger on top of the button does not unlock the phone: you also have to press the button. This way it is much less likely to unlock the phone accidentally and we must admit that we got used to it very quickly.

keyboard in landscape mode
keyboard in landscape mode
keyboard in portrait mode
keyboard in portrait mode

Display

subpixel geometry
subpixel geometry

The oddly sized 2560x1440 16:9 display measures exactly 5.72 inches diagonally. In order to conserve power, the resolution can be lowered in the settings menu. The display was amazingly sharp, however small fonts and objects were sometimes a bit too small. This, too, can be addressed in the settings. Maximum brightness was somewhat low at just 436 nits but at least at 92% it was very evenly distributed, and we have failed to notice any differences in brightness.

The phone’s highlight is its support for 120 FPS, allowing for very smooth and completely stutter-free gaming. It worked very well if the game or app in question supported it. We did not notice any screen flickering and response times although very fast, were a little bit too slow for fast-paced games.

405
cd/m²
434
cd/m²
421
cd/m²
412
cd/m²
436
cd/m²
423
cd/m²
399
cd/m²
424
cd/m²
401
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 436 cd/m² Average: 417.2 cd/m² Minimum: 8.6 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 92 %
Center on Battery: 436 cd/m²
Contrast: 2725:1 (Black: 0.16 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.88 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 5.8 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
97.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.45
Razer Phone 2017
IGZO LCD, 120 Hz, Wide Color Gamut, 1440x2560, 5.72
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5
OnePlus 5T
AMOLED, 2160x1080, 6.01
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.2
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
OLED, 2160x1080, 6
Screen
9%
26%
42%
45%
Brightness middle
436
559
28%
425
-3%
560
28%
629
44%
Brightness
417
538
29%
423
1%
562
35%
636
53%
Brightness Distribution
92
90
-2%
92
0%
93
1%
94
2%
Black Level *
0.16
0.38
-138%
Contrast
2725
1471
-46%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
3.88
1.3
66%
2.1
46%
1.7
56%
1.7
56%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
7.96
2.7
66%
3.4
57%
3.4
57%
3.6
55%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
5.8
1.8
69%
2.5
57%
1.6
72%
2.4
59%
Gamma
2.45 90%
2.25 98%
2.32 95%
2.13 103%
2.15 102%
CCT
7657 85%
6797 96%
6455 101%
6435 101%
6337 103%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
81.57
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
99.87

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM not detected

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9338 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Since the display does not feature an OLED panel but a conventional LCD panel instead, a backlight is required for blacks. Thankfully, the phone’s black level of 0.16 nits was very dark with an impressive contrast ratio of 2,725:1.

Using the CalMAN software and a spectrophotometer we were able to detect a slight blue tint in gray scales. However, the phone supports adjusting the display’s color temperature, and we were thus able to all but eliminate it. Out of the box, color accuracy was not the best and DeltaE deviations were pretty high. In return, sRGB color space coverage was very decent.

CalMAN gray scale
CalMAN gray scale
CalMAN color space
CalMAN color space
CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN saturation
CalMAN saturation

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
19 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 12 ms rise
↘ 7 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 21 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.8 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
30 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 17 ms rise
↘ 13 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 19 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39.4 ms).

The display did very well outdoors, at least on overcast days. Thanks to its superb viewing angles the display remained usable even at extreme angles.

outdoors - maximum brightness
outdoors - maximum brightness
viewing angles
viewing angles

Performance

Given it’s gamer-centric focus, performance must be a top priority, and the Razer Phone did not disappoint. Its Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 SoC is fitting for a premium high-end smartphone. In some benchmarks, it managed to outperform the entire Android competition. That said, Apple’s phenomenal iPhone 8 Plus remains unrivaled with no Android smartphone getting even close.

Qualcomm Adreno 540 GPU is used for graphics output and it too performed very well.

PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
7046 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 5T
6595 Points ∼94% -6%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
5195 Points ∼74% -26%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
6932 Points ∼98% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (5603 - 7223, n=19)
6702 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (2630 - 11690, n=398)
5367 Points ∼76% -24%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
7968 Points ∼94%
OnePlus 5T
7739 Points ∼92% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
5830 Points ∼69% -27%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
8439 Points ∼100% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (6854 - 8553, n=19)
7820 Points ∼93% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (1077 - 15193, n=565)
5831 Points ∼69% -27%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
1225 Points ∼92%
OnePlus 5T
1329 Points ∼100% +8%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
1163 Points ∼88% -5%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
1234 Points ∼93% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (1009 - 1329, n=17)
1222 Points ∼92% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1745, n=642)
764 Points ∼57% -38%
Graphics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
6273 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 5T
6100 Points ∼97% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
6126 Points ∼98% -2%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3657 Points ∼58% -42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (5791 - 6273, n=17)
6052 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 16996, n=642)
2105 Points ∼34% -66%
Memory (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
4085 Points ∼99%
OnePlus 5T
3845 Points ∼93% -6%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
3135 Points ∼76% -23%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
4142 Points ∼100% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (1501 - 4423, n=17)
3137 Points ∼76% -23%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 7500, n=642)
1552 Points ∼37% -62%
System (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
5660 Points ∼96%
OnePlus 5T
5872 Points ∼100% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
5319 Points ∼91% -6%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
5244 Points ∼89% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (4238 - 5926, n=17)
5690 Points ∼97% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 14189, n=642)
3030 Points ∼52% -46%
Overall (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
3651 Points ∼99%
OnePlus 5T
3678 Points ∼100% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
3301 Points ∼90% -10%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3147 Points ∼86% -14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (2702 - 3790, n=17)
3367 Points ∼92% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (1 - 6097, n=642)
1521 Points ∼41% -58%
Geekbench 4.4
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
7931 Points ∼93%
OnePlus 5T
8000 Points ∼93% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
8295 Points ∼97% +5%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
8572 Points ∼100% +8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (7462 - 8281, n=13)
7893 Points ∼92% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (663 - 21070, n=328)
4681 Points ∼55% -41%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
6742 Points ∼64%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
10558 Points ∼100% +57%
OnePlus 5T
6670 Points ∼63% -1%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
6695 Points ∼63% -1%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
6792 Points ∼64% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (6006 - 6799, n=18)
6515 Points ∼62% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 11598, n=387)
4727 Points ∼45% -30%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
1942 Points ∼46%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
4263 Points ∼100% +120%
OnePlus 5T
1962 Points ∼46% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
2015 Points ∼47% +4%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
1898 Points ∼45% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (1809 - 1973, n=18)
1917 Points ∼45% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (390 - 4824, n=387)
1429 Points ∼34% -26%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
3157 Points ∼100%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
2109 Points ∼67% -33%
OnePlus 5T
3068 Points ∼97% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
2466 Points ∼78% -22%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2871 Points ∼91% -9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (1628 - 3157, n=18)
2891 Points ∼92% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (486 - 4909, n=485)
1902 Points ∼60% -40%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
4049 Points ∼100%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
3069 Points ∼76% -24%
OnePlus 5T
4016 Points ∼99% -1%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
3479 Points ∼86% -14%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2844 Points ∼70% -30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (3560 - 4072, n=18)
3901 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (53 - 7150, n=485)
1501 Points ∼37% -63%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
3810 Points ∼100%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
2781 Points ∼73% -27%
OnePlus 5T
3758 Points ∼99% -1%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
3188 Points ∼84% -16%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2850 Points ∼75% -25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (2895 - 3810, n=18)
3609 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (68 - 6319, n=486)
1444 Points ∼38% -62%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
3092 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 5T
3031 Points ∼98% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
2465 Points ∼80% -20%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2896 Points ∼94% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (1574 - 3092, n=17)
2795 Points ∼90% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (293 - 4900, n=526)
1765 Points ∼57% -43%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
6127 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 5T
5791 Points ∼95% -5%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
4786 Points ∼78% -22%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3353 Points ∼55% -45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (3682 - 6231, n=17)
5615 Points ∼92% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (43 - 11302, n=525)
1967 Points ∼32% -68%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
5030 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 5T
4816 Points ∼96% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
3958 Points ∼79% -21%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3239 Points ∼64% -36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (3407 - 5030, n=17)
4558 Points ∼91% -9%
Average of class Smartphone (55 - 8338, n=528)
1697 Points ∼34% -66%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
21521 Points ∼84%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
25641 Points ∼100% +19%
OnePlus 5T
21348 Points ∼83% -1%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
20892 Points ∼81% -3%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
22629 Points ∼88% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (6729 - 23046, n=20)
19196 Points ∼75% -11%
Average of class Smartphone (735 - 45072, n=686)
14321 Points ∼56% -33%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
58360 Points ∼51%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
113380 Points ∼100% +94%
OnePlus 5T
58097 Points ∼51% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
33077 Points ∼29% -43%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
34008 Points ∼30% -42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (16794 - 58360, n=20)
53776 Points ∼47% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (536 - 209204, n=684)
22437 Points ∼20% -62%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
42278 Points ∼66%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
64405 Points ∼100% +52%
OnePlus 5T
42022 Points ∼65% -1%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
29282 Points ∼45% -31%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
30590 Points ∼47% -28%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (12604 - 42278, n=20)
37906 Points ∼59% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (662 - 97276, n=684)
18114 Points ∼28% -57%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
117 fps ∼70%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
166.9 fps ∼100% +43%
OnePlus 5T
113 fps ∼68% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
104 fps ∼62% -11%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
112 fps ∼67% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (69 - 119, n=18)
107 fps ∼64% -9%
Average of class Smartphone (0.5 - 322, n=704)
38.4 fps ∼23% -67%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
79 fps ∼66%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
119.4 fps ∼100% +51%
OnePlus 5T
60 fps ∼50% -24%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
58 fps ∼49% -27%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
60 fps ∼50% -24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (54 - 79, n=19)
60.3 fps ∼51% -24%
Average of class Smartphone (1 - 120, n=713)
28.3 fps ∼24% -64%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
43 fps ∼61%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
71 fps ∼100% +65%
OnePlus 5T
60 fps ∼85% +40%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
50 fps ∼70% +16%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
54 fps ∼76% +26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (43 - 64, n=19)
55.2 fps ∼78% +28%
Average of class Smartphone (0.8 - 175, n=609)
22.2 fps ∼31% -48%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
40 fps ∼51%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
79.2 fps ∼100% +98%
OnePlus 5T
53 fps ∼67% +33%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
38 fps ∼48% -5%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
56 fps ∼71% +40%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (29 - 58, n=19)
42.3 fps ∼53% +6%
Average of class Smartphone (1.2 - 115, n=618)
19.6 fps ∼25% -51%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
21 fps ∼43%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
49 fps ∼100% +133%
OnePlus 5T
41 fps ∼84% +95%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
42 fps ∼86% +100%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
37 fps ∼76% +76%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (21 - 43, n=19)
37.9 fps ∼77% +80%
Average of class Smartphone (0.87 - 117, n=474)
18.1 fps ∼37% -14%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
22 fps ∼39%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
56.4 fps ∼100% +156%
OnePlus 5T
37 fps ∼66% +68%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
23 fps ∼41% +5%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
38 fps ∼67% +73%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (15 - 59, n=19)
29.1 fps ∼52% +32%
Average of class Smartphone (1.2 - 110, n=476)
16.9 fps ∼30% -23%
GFXBench
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
25 fps ∼100%
OnePlus 5T
25 fps ∼100% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
25 fps ∼100% 0%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
21 fps ∼84% -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (22 - 26, n=19)
24.5 fps ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (0.6 - 73, n=399)
12.3 fps ∼49% -51%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
15 fps ∼65%
OnePlus 5T
23 fps ∼100% +53%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
13 fps ∼57% -13%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
22 fps ∼96% +47%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (11 - 50, n=19)
19.5 fps ∼85% +30%
Average of class Smartphone (1.1 - 60, n=403)
11 fps ∼48% -27%
AnTuTu v7
MEM (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
9171 Points ∼67%
OnePlus 5T
9027 Points ∼66% -2%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
13626 Points ∼100% +49%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (8164 - 16148, n=8)
9635 Points ∼71% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (915 - 32585, n=296)
7978 Points ∼59% -13%
UX (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
42483 Points ∼91%
OnePlus 5T
46549 Points ∼100% +10%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
44584 Points ∼96% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (42180 - 47943, n=8)
44325 Points ∼95% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (6403 - 81494, n=295)
34236 Points ∼74% -19%
GPU (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
84560 Points ∼98%
OnePlus 5T
85868 Points ∼100% +2%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
81761 Points ∼95% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (77533 - 85868, n=8)
82910 Points ∼97% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (1572 - 221998, n=296)
45356 Points ∼53% -46%
CPU (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
72758 Points ∼99%
OnePlus 5T
73371 Points ∼100% +1%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
72307 Points ∼99% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (68241 - 73371, n=8)
71814 Points ∼98% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (2443 - 153154, n=296)
54999 Points ∼75% -24%
Total Score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
208972 Points ∼97%
OnePlus 5T
214815 Points ∼100% +3%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
212278 Points ∼99% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (201881 - 217442, n=8)
208685 Points ∼97% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 462516, n=296)
143005 Points ∼67% -32%

Legend

 
Razer Phone 2017 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Apple iPhone 8 Plus Apple A11 Bionic, Apple A11 Bionic GPU, Apple 256 GB (iPhone 8 / Plus)
 
OnePlus 5T Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus Samsung Exynos 8895 Octa, ARM Mali-G71 MP20, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Huawei Mate 10 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 970, ARM Mali-G72 MP12, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

Browsing the web on the Razer Phone turned out to be a smooth and enjoyable experience. Nevertheless, it was outperformed by the Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus and the iPhone 8 Plus. Still, even the most complex HTML 5 websites loaded very quickly and were thus no real challenge at all.

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
223.5 Points ∼100% +253%
OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63)
66.477 Points ∼30% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (52.9 - 80.4, n=19)
66.1 Points ∼30% +4%
Razer Phone 2017 (Chrome 65)
63.3 Points ∼28%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus (Samsung Browser 5.2)
62.198 Points ∼28% -2%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61)
56.63 Points ∼25% -11%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 302, n=539)
42.3 Points ∼19% -33%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
35209 Points ∼100% +179%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus (Samsung Browser 5.2)
14050 Points ∼40% +12%
Razer Phone 2017 (Chrome 65)
12600 Points ∼36%
OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63)
12509 Points ∼36% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (3086 - 14300, n=20)
11209 Points ∼32% -11%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61)
10406 Points ∼30% -17%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=700)
6885 Points ∼20% -45%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (571 - 59466, n=725)
10463 ms * ∼100% -201%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61)
3590.6 ms * ∼34% -3%
Razer Phone 2017 (Chrome 65)
3476 ms * ∼33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (2425 - 4813, n=19)
3219 ms * ∼31% +7%
OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63)
3096 ms * ∼30% +11%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus (Samsung Browser 5.2)
2236.7 ms * ∼21% +36%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
719.7 ms * ∼7% +79%

* ... smaller is better

Reading from and writing to our microSD reference card (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) was very fast, and the same was true for the phone’s internal storage. The Razer Phone was more or less on a par with the Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus.

Razer Phone 2017OnePlus 5TSamsung Galaxy S8 PlusHuawei Mate 10 ProAverage 64 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
8%
-0%
262%
49%
-23%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
52.5
57.24 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
9%
51.1 (17.1 - 71.9, n=28)
-3%
49.5 (1.7 - 87.1, n=436)
-6%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
79.4
71.12 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-10%
67.4 (18 - 86.6, n=28)
-15%
67.7 (8.1 - 96.5, n=436)
-15%
Random Write 4KB
14.3
20
40%
15.27
7%
164.45
1050%
60.1 (8.77 - 165, n=38)
320%
23.1 (0.14 - 259, n=762)
62%
Random Read 4KB
142.5
138.1
-3%
127.18
-11%
132.27
-7%
134 (78.2 - 173, n=38)
-6%
48.5 (1.59 - 226, n=762)
-66%
Sequential Write 256KB
202.5
203.4
0%
194.18
-4%
208.72
3%
199 (133 - 388, n=38)
-2%
99.5 (2.99 - 590, n=762)
-51%
Sequential Read 256KB
732.3
698.7
-5%
787.6
8%
732.46
0%
711 (484 - 895, n=38)
-3%
280 (12.1 - 1781, n=762)
-62%

Gaming

Obviously, we had to put the main focus of the performance section of this review on gaming performance, and in addition decided to include some games with support for the device’s 120 FPS mode. “Battle Bay” and “World of Tanks Blitz” ran at more than 60 FPS but only “Battle Bay” managed to maintain a frame rate of 120 FPS for a significant amount of time. “World of Tanks Blitz” ran at around 90 FPS instead. Nevertheless, both games ran very smoothly. Performance-wise, the Razer Phone was more than powerful enough to run all games we threw at it in the highest possible settings at maximum FPS (note: some games limit maximum FPS to 30 on minimum settings). Frame rates in “Arena of Valor” dropped occasionally, but we have failed to notice any stuttering. In “Shadow Fight 3”, the phone ran rather poorly on minimum details but very smoothly on maximum settings due to the lifted FPS limitation.

The preloaded Game Booster software allows you to select a maximum frame rate for games (assuming the game in question includes support for Game Booster) and enable extra anti-aliasing modes.

Shadow Fight 3
Shadow Fight 3
Arena of Valor
Arena of Valor
Arena of Valor
Razer Phone 2017
min
62 (min: 50) fps ∼100%
high HD
61 (min: 23) fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S9
high HD
59 fps ∼97%
Battle Bay
Razer Phone 2017
half resolution
121 (min: 121) fps ∼100%
full resolution
121 (min: 116) fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S9
full resolution
60 fps ∼50%
Shadow Fight 3
Razer Phone 2017
high
60 (min: 55) fps ∼100%
minimal
30 (min: 27) fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S9
high
59 fps ∼98%
World of Tanks Blitz
Razer Phone 2017
low AA:0x AF:0x
91 (min: 85) fps ∼100%
high AA:0x AF:0x
91 (min: 66) fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S9
high AA:0x AF:0x
60 (min: 57) fps ∼66%

Legend

 
Razer Phone 2017 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S9 Samsung Exynos 9810, ARM Mali-G72 MP18, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
Shadow Fight 3
 SettingsValue
 high60 fps
 minimal30 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Battle Bay
 SettingsValue
 half resolution121 fps
 full resolution121 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Arena of Valor
 SettingsValue
 min62 fps
 high HD61 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
World of Tanks Blitz
 SettingsValue
 low, 0xAA, 0xAF91 fps
 high, 0xAA, 0xAF91 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!

Emissions

Temperature

GFXBench battery test
GFXBench battery test

With a maximum of just 32.8 °C (~91 °F), the case remained remarkably cool, even under load. The phone was only slightly cooler when idle, and accordingly we have barely noticed any warming. After around ten iterations of GFXBench’s battery benchmark, performance had dropped by around 15% and remained at that level afterwards.

Max. Load
 31.1 °C
88 F
30.1 °C
86 F
30.3 °C
87 F
 
 32 °C
90 F
30.5 °C
87 F
32.7 °C
91 F
 
 31.6 °C
89 F
30.5 °C
87 F
31.7 °C
89 F
 
Maximum: 32.7 °C = 91 F
Average: 31.2 °C = 88 F
31.1 °C
88 F
32.1 °C
90 F
32.8 °C
91 F
31.3 °C
88 F
32 °C
90 F
31.9 °C
89 F
31.3 °C
88 F
32.3 °C
90 F
32.8 °C
91 F
Maximum: 32.8 °C = 91 F
Average: 32 °C = 90 F
Power Supply (max.)  31.5 °C = 89 F | Room Temperature 21.8 °C = 71 F | Voltcraft IR-350
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 31.2 °C / 88 F, compared to the average of 33.1 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 32.7 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 35.5 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 32.8 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 34 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.7 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.
heatmap rear
heatmap rear
heatmap front
heatmap front

Speakers

pink noise
pink noise

The phone’s speakers are not just a design feature, they also sound very good. Both speakers are facing the user and are spaced wide enough apart to produce real stereo effects. Maximum volume was not particularly high, but neither music nor voices distorted and the soundscape was warm and balanced by and large with more pronounced mids than the average high-end smartphone. In direct comparison with the OnePlus 5T, the Razer’s sound was richer with a hint of bass. The Dolby Atmos app can be used to adjust sound output to one’s liking.

Given the phone’s lack of a standard 3.5-mm headphone jack, the included THX-certified USB-C DAC must be used in order to connect regular headphones to the device should you desire to do so. Analog and Bluetooth sound quality were decent. It is also worth noting that a headset is not included.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2029.525.929.52526.427.726.43126.526.526.54026.628.326.65025.525.225.56323.922.723.98026.523.626.510033.623.333.612540.230.540.216045.821.145.820052.420.652.425055.322.955.331557.921.157.940060.921.560.950064.822.364.863069.117.569.180071.520.171.5100069.719.969.712507018.270160069.51669.5200070.715.770.7250071.614.871.6315069.614.569.6400066.914.266.95000681468630067.813.867.8800068.913.968.91000066.51466.51250062.71462.71600058.613.858.6SPL81.229.381.2N51.51.251.5median 66.9median 17.5median 66.9Delta7.13.57.131.633.925.429.825.32632.928.833.627.631.627.328.425.72730.320.834.22241.121.349.220.855.321.260.819.462.119.566.617.770.217.97217.873.417.373.617.474.416.773.317.274.118.273.217.969.817.666.917.769.617.863.817.953.818.15118.244.73082.91.356.6median 17.9median 66.61.311hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseRazer Phone 2017Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
Razer Phone 2017 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 19.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 0% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 14% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 82% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.88 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.2% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 27% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 62% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 54% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 38% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Frequency comparison (checkboxes selectable/unselectable)

Power Management

Power Consumption

The Razer Phone was not the most efficient phone we ever saw, but then again energy efficiency is probably not very high up on a gamer’s list of gaming smartphone characteristics. Idle power consumption was particularly high. Under load, the Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus 8 consumed more than 40% less energy than our review unit.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.15 / 0.21 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.83 / 2.11 / 2.24 Watt
Load midlight 4.94 / 9.08 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Razer Phone 2017
4000 mAh
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
2691 mAh
OnePlus 5T
3300 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
3500 mAh
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
4000 mAh
Power Consumption
1%
27%
32%
22%
Idle Minimum *
0.83
0.72
13%
0.58
30%
0.68
18%
0.85
-2%
Idle Average *
2.11
2.45
-16%
1.44
32%
1.13
46%
1.15
45%
Idle Maximum *
2.24
2.52
-13%
1.53
32%
1.16
48%
1.23
45%
Load Average *
4.94
3.84
22%
3.17
36%
4.69
5%
4.12
17%
Load Maximum *
9.08
9.02
1%
8.54
6%
5.24
42%
8.42
7%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Thanks to its high-capacity 4,000 mAh (15.2 Wh) battery, the Razer Phone offered decent battery life despite its high power consumption and lasted for 12:42 hours in our Wi-Fi test, which was at eye level with its competitors. Thus, if you are not playing games you might get through more than one day on a single charge. It is safe to leave the house at 30 % remaining charge level - moderate use presupposed, and the phone will easily last until the end of the day.

In order to save energy, the display’s resolution can be reduced in the settings. Charging the battery from near empty to 100% takes no more than 2 hours thanks to support for Quick Charge.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
12h 42min
Razer Phone 2017
4000 mAh
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
2691 mAh
OnePlus 5T
3300 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus
3500 mAh
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
4000 mAh
Battery Runtime
-14%
-6%
-3%
7%
Reader / Idle
2085
1754
1565
1744
WiFi v1.3
762
657
-14%
718
-6%
736
-3%
818
7%
Load
211
257
275
398
H.264
733
799
742
929

Pros

+ long battery life
+ decent gaming performance
+ innovative high-contrast 120 Hz display
+ decent cameras
+ decent stereo speakers
+ remained comparatively cool
+ accurate touchscreen
+ very fast Wi-Fi
+ plenty of RAM

Cons

- not all games and apps support 120 Hz
- no headset included
- no 3.5-mm audio jack
- poor earphone call quality
- high power consumption
- heavy
- moderate throttling under load

Verdict

In review: Razer Phone 2017. Review unit courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de
In review: Razer Phone 2017. Review unit courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de

In the olden days, gamers were locked up in their dark rooms until the Game Boy, the Razer Phone’s great-great-great-grandfather came along. Today, the Razer Phone allows for mobile gaming on the road at 120 FPS with great stereo sound to boot. The high-resolution display is bright enough, the battery lasts long enough, the cameras are on a par with other high-end smartphones, and while not particularly cheap, the Razer Phone is still considerably cheaper than the Samsung Galaxy S9 or the iPhone 8.

The Razer Phone is a powerful long-running conservatively designed gaming device for the road.

The two things that have surprised us most were the phone’s lack of a 3.5-mm headphone jack and the fact that Razer has decided not to include a headset in the box. Call quality over earphone was pretty poor, and the microphone distorted our voices very quickly. The phone also throttled slightly under load. All that is nit-picking, though, and at the end of the day the Razer Phone is a high-quality phone at a fair price, and will certainly find its audience not just among gamers.

Razer Phone 2017 - 03/27/2018 v6(old)
Florian Wimmer

Chassis
89%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
91%
Connectivity
49 / 60 → 81%
Weight
88%
Battery
96%
Display
87%
Games Performance
64 / 63 → 100%
Application Performance
70 / 70 → 100%
Temperature
93%
Noise
100%
Audio
64 / 91 → 70%
Camera
83%
Average
80%
88%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Razer Phone 2017 Smartphone Review
Florian Wimmer, 2018-03-30 (Update: 2019-03-20)